[77] Such forms as _amda_ ＜ _amĭta_, _comde_ _conde_ ＜ _compŭtum_, show a late fall of the medial vowel.
[78] The _i_ in _ueich_ seems to be merely graphic.
[79] The _i_ in _voig_ seems to be merely graphic.
[81] The phenomena of dissimilation have been well classified by M. Grammont in _La dissimilation consonantique dans les langues indo-européennes et dans les langues romanes_, 1895. For metathesis, see _Zs._, XXVIII, 1.
[83] The process began in classic Latin: _materies_ _materia_, etc.
[88] Perhaps from a fusion of _plūs_ and _pluriōres_ = _plūres_. Cf. Fr.
[89] These forms existed as early as the 1st century of our era. See _Zs._, XXVI, 600, 619. _Ejus_, _ei_ may have had some influence.
[93] Cf. Meyer-Lübke, _Gram._, II, p. 104.
[94] See Suchier in _Grundriss_, I, p. 627.
[95] Cf. A. von Elsner, _Ueber Form und Verwendung des Personalpronomens im Altprovenzalischen_, 1886.
[96] Cf. Thomas in _Rom._, XII, 334; Meyer-Lübke in _Gram._, II, page 104. For a different explanation, see Ascoli in _Archivio glottologico italiano_, XV, 314, 396.
[97] For a different explanation of _mia_, see _Gram._, I, pp. 246-248, also Horning in _Zs._, XXV, 341. Cf. Fr. _moie_.
[98] _Cels_ shows the influence of masculine nouns and adjectives.
[99] _Aquel_ has also _aquilli_. _Cilha_ is evidently a combination of _cilh_ and _celha_.
[101] _Aquel_ has also _aquelz_ and _aquelses_.
[102] See G. Rydberg, _Le développement de_ facere _dans les langues romanes_, 1893.
[103] See A. Zimmermann in _Zs._, XXV, 735.
[104] See C. C. Rice in _Publications of the Modern Language Association of America_, XIX, 217.
[107] According to Raimon Vidal, a 13th century grammarian, _tenir_ is French.
[108] _Esvanuir_ seems to come from the perfect, _evanuī_.
[109] _Enfolhetir_ shows the influence of _follet_.
[110] For two different explanations of this ending, see A. Thomas, _Essais de philologie française_, 25, 281; E. Herzog, in _Bausteine zur romanischen Philologie_, 481.
[111] See K. Sittl in _Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik_, I, 465.
[112] For _ai estat_ we sometimes find _soi agutz_. The confusion arises perhaps from the use of both _es_ and _a_ in the sense of ‘there is’: hence _es estat_ = _a agut_; and by a mixture of the two, _es agut_. Cf. L. Gauchat, _Sone avuto_, in _Scritti vari di filologia_ (dedicated to E. Monaci), 1901, p. 61.